Canon EF 70-200 F/2.8 or EF 300mm F/2.8?

[Yves Matteau]

I am a bird photographer enthusiasm . I own a Canon 40D and 100-400 is f/5.6 lens. I intend to buy a new lens and hesitate between a Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM and one EF 300 mm F/2.8 IS USM.
What do you suggest?
I shoud ad that i like to make pictures hand-held.
Thank you for your help.

[Gary "Jake" Jacobson]

If the 100-400 doesn't bring you close enough, what will either the 70-200 or the 300 prime bring you that you don't already have? If you are looking for sharper images, the 70-200 with a tele-converter will do no better than your 100-400, so if you are looking for a sharper image, I guess the 300 would be your lens. I would suggest selling your car and buying a 500mm f4 IS. :)

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Yves They are totally different lenses

One is over 4k and six pounds the other 1K and 3 pounds If you need reach might compare the 300 2.0 with the 500 f 4.0 Much rather have the 500

Regarding the 70-200 I had the 2.8 and changed to the 4.0 It is lighter, razor sharp and focuses very well !!!

[Steve Foss]

I also suggest waiting until you can afford the 500 f4. You have reach to 400mm and all the flexibility the 100-400 offers now, so buying either of the other two lenses wouldn't help you at all.

Of course, once you enter the world of the supertele primes, you're virtually done hand-holding unless you're very strong. Of the 400, 500 and 600 primes, the 500 is lightest, but it's still about eight pounds.

[Jim Neiger]

Hi Yves,

For birds, reach is very helpful. I specialize in photographing birds using hand held techniques, and my lens of choice is the 500mm F4. I also own the 300 F2.8, which is my second choice. With TCs, the 300 is a 420mm F4 or a 600mm F5.6 and it's a bit lighter than the 500mm. Many people like the 400mm F4 DO lens which is very light and becomes a 560mm F5.6 when you add a 1.4xTC. All 3 of these lenses are expensive. The 70-200mm doesn't buy you anything reach wise.